Loading…
Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland
To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics...
Saved in:
Published in: | PloS one 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923 |
container_end_page | e0270490 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | e0270490 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Mewes, Janne C Lindenberg, Melanie Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M |
description | To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0270490 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2686270039</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A708505543</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ee1d2069a35e46f8ae762655d44fa8b7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A708505543</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9GK1DAUhoso7rr6BoIFQfSiY9I0aXsjLIOuAwsLrnob0vSkk6FNxiRdHd_AtzbdqbKVvZBc5JB85z85PzlJ8hyjFSYlfruzozOiX-2tgRXKS1TU6EFyimuSZyxH5OGd-CR54v0OIUoqxh4nJ4SWjFBUnia_1taHDJQCGfQNGPA-FVH24LVPrUr1sO9hABO06VIvHYCZImvSvYMAbpj2DGQvhr3XIhUhVdr5kAanB_CRmFQi0xlh5CHVJr2IWcIcYpk2vf6uw09wfYyfJo-U6D08m_ez5MuH95_XH7PLq4vN-vwyk4zVIZMCYdrURAlJoYKGlbSBvCkLShArRIGZqhSu66phFGHVtLSUklJc5SXgos7JWfLiqLvvreezi57nrGLRRETqSGyORGvFju9jI8IduBWa3x5Y13HhgpY9cADc5ojVglAoYmUBJcsZpW1RKFE1ZdR6N1cbmwFaGZ10ol-ILm-M3vLO3vD40rpgNAq8ngWc_TZGR_mgvYQ-WgZ2vH03rnCeFziiL_9B7-9upjoRG9BG2VhXTqL8vEQVRZQWJFKre6i4Whi0jF9O6Xi-SHizSIhMgB-hE6P3fHP96f_Zq69L9tUddguiD1tv-zFoa_wSLI6gdNZ7B-qvyRjxaWL-uMGnieHzxJDfG98JLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2686270039</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><creator>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creator><contributor>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M ; Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270490</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35763507</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aspirin ; Blood pressure ; Cost analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Costs ; Diagnosis ; Diagnosis related groups ; Disease prevention ; DRGs ; Drug dosages ; Economic analysis ; Economic aspects ; Economic models ; Evaluation ; Health aspects ; Health care ; Health risks ; Medical care, Cost of ; Medical screening ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Obstetrics ; Parameter sensitivity ; People and Places ; Pre-eclampsia ; Preeclampsia ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Premature birth ; Prenatal care ; Sensitivity analysis ; Social Sciences ; Stillbirth ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Mewes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Mewes et al 2022 Mewes et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2686270039/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2686270039?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindenberg, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><title>PloS one</title><description>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</description><subject>Aspirin</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis related groups</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>DRGs</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Medical care, Cost of</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Parameter sensitivity</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Pre-eclampsia</subject><subject>Preeclampsia</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Premature birth</subject><subject>Prenatal care</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Stillbirth</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9GK1DAUhoso7rr6BoIFQfSiY9I0aXsjLIOuAwsLrnob0vSkk6FNxiRdHd_AtzbdqbKVvZBc5JB85z85PzlJ8hyjFSYlfruzozOiX-2tgRXKS1TU6EFyimuSZyxH5OGd-CR54v0OIUoqxh4nJ4SWjFBUnia_1taHDJQCGfQNGPA-FVH24LVPrUr1sO9hABO06VIvHYCZImvSvYMAbpj2DGQvhr3XIhUhVdr5kAanB_CRmFQi0xlh5CHVJr2IWcIcYpk2vf6uw09wfYyfJo-U6D08m_ez5MuH95_XH7PLq4vN-vwyk4zVIZMCYdrURAlJoYKGlbSBvCkLShArRIGZqhSu66phFGHVtLSUklJc5SXgos7JWfLiqLvvreezi57nrGLRRETqSGyORGvFju9jI8IduBWa3x5Y13HhgpY9cADc5ojVglAoYmUBJcsZpW1RKFE1ZdR6N1cbmwFaGZ10ol-ILm-M3vLO3vD40rpgNAq8ngWc_TZGR_mgvYQ-WgZ2vH03rnCeFziiL_9B7-9upjoRG9BG2VhXTqL8vEQVRZQWJFKre6i4Whi0jF9O6Xi-SHizSIhMgB-hE6P3fHP96f_Zq69L9tUddguiD1tv-zFoa_wSLI6gdNZ7B-qvyRjxaWL-uMGnieHzxJDfG98JLQ</recordid><startdate>20220628</startdate><enddate>20220628</enddate><creator>Mewes, Janne C</creator><creator>Lindenberg, Melanie</creator><creator>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220628</creationdate><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><author>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aspirin</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis related groups</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>DRGs</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Medical care, Cost of</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Parameter sensitivity</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Pre-eclampsia</topic><topic>Preeclampsia</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Premature birth</topic><topic>Prenatal care</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Stillbirth</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindenberg, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale_Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mewes, Janne C</au><au>Lindenberg, Melanie</au><au>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</au><au>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-06-28</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0270490</spage><epage>e0270490</epage><pages>e0270490-e0270490</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35763507</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0270490</doi><tpages>e0270490</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2686270039 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PubMed Central(OpenAccess) |
subjects | Aspirin Blood pressure Cost analysis Cost benefit analysis Costs Diagnosis Diagnosis related groups Disease prevention DRGs Drug dosages Economic analysis Economic aspects Economic models Evaluation Health aspects Health care Health risks Medical care, Cost of Medical screening Medicine and Health Sciences Obstetrics Parameter sensitivity People and Places Pre-eclampsia Preeclampsia Pregnancy Pregnant women Premature birth Prenatal care Sensitivity analysis Social Sciences Stillbirth Womens health |
title | Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A36%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness%20analysis%20of%20implementing%20screening%20on%20preterm%20pre-eclampsia%20at%20first%20trimester%20of%20pregnancy%20in%20Germany%20and%20Switzerland&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Mewes,%20Janne%20C&rft.date=2022-06-28&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0270490&rft.epage=e0270490&rft.pages=e0270490-e0270490&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0270490&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA708505543%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2686270039&rft_id=info:pmid/35763507&rft_galeid=A708505543&rfr_iscdi=true |